Not sure where this should go, but I just found this from Allen Hopkins. http://foxsports.lycos.com/content/view?contentId=881416 I would throw Philly in as getting my vote for the 10th city.
Obviously it doesn't matter to Mr. Hopkins whether or not soccer is played on a wide field from the choices that he makes. I think you could do a lot better then the choices that he makes here, even supposing there were no major stadiums built/renovated for the event. At least Seattle, Philly and New England have stadiums that were built with soccer in mind. But FedEx Field, Invesco and others are noted for their narrow confines. Plus, how could he leave the new Soldier Field off of his list? RFK is still a great soccer venue. I am indifferent to the suggestion of Giants Stadium and the Rose Bowl. I don't know about the configurations of Ford Field, Reliant Field, Joe Robbie, etc. But I doubt that they are any more suited for Soccer then a lot of the other football fields. Facelifts can do wonders for stadiums. How many new stadiums is Germany featuring in 2006? The EPL stadiums in England have been rebuilt many times, but they are still old. France didn't have many new stadiums in '98. I don't think that the expectations for the world require the effort that Japan/Korea put forward in '02. I think any disappointment in using older venues would be more than offset by having fields (and style of play) that are closer to the maximum size as outlined in the Laws of the Game.
I agree. As far as Fedex field goes. I doubt they would have 4 host cities in the north east, Foxboro, NYC, Philly and Washington. With the new stadium in philly, DC may be out if there are issue with the layout at Fedex (which i don't know for sure). RFK is probably out at this point as there are better options and new facilities across the country. Cincinati's new stadium, for example, was designed with soccer in mind. I believe Germany is going to have a few new stadiums. Munich is getting a new one, I'm sure.
It would depend on how many total venues they decided to use, I would imagine. But I admit that 4 would be too many and NYC would likely be non-negotiable. Still They might use 4 in the same region if the 4th was used for the final only. As far as atmosphere goes @50,000 fans in the small confines of RFK (which is partially-roofed mind you) makes for an amazing soccer atmosphere. I don't care how old it is. I just don't think there are many stadiums that compare. ed note - Sorry if the above sounds condescending. you obviously know all about RFK's relative merits and inadequacies. Didn't notice you were a DCU fan when I first posted. It sure wasn't designed with American football in mind, that's for sure. It is the home field of the Bengals mind you. Also, the turf in this field is simply awful. I am sure they could fix that, though. Although I don't know why they have'nt already. You are right. I had thought it was going to be a complete renovation, but it is not. I think that if the US gets the rights to hold the World Cup as soon as 2010, then FIFA should demand at least one new venue. If MLS had its druthers, it would be in NYC. A 50,000-seater with soccer in mind would do the trick nicely.
I didn't know there were problems with the turf in cinci. I just remember hearing during construction that they dimensioned the field to hold soccer games. Anyway just an example. Don't get me wrong, I love RFK, no better soccer stadium in the country. But for the WC another 7 years of neglect isn't going to do it any favors. Spending money on serious renovations is unrealistic, unless it is for baseball.
I may be wrong but after '94 wasn't there was a rule enacted by FIFA which specified the number or percentage of seats which had to covered at each stadium in order to host a Cup match. Of the 10 stadiums listed, only half (the new Foxboro, RFK, Detroit, Houston and Seattle) would be compliant with the rules. Granted, FIFA could grant exceptions, etc., but it is just one other thing to consider in stadium selection
That maybe the case, but ultimately it is going to come down to dollars, and a WC in the US makes money, and a lot of it, rooved (sp? roofed) statia or no.
Hopkins articulately builds a case for why Africa will not host the 2010 World Cup. But he does little to convince anyone why the US will be the host instead. In reality, there are some reasons why he may be right: 1) it's unlikely to be Europe since they get 2006; 2) South America has major economic problems at the moment; 3) Asia just had 2002. But there are other alternatives: Brazil could still pull it off. Mexico can certainly do it again. What about Canada? They could at least be a co-host. Australia or Australia/NZ is another logical alternative. The US may still be the best alternative. If we win it we will have plenty of stadium alternatives.
Perhaps my skimming skills have deteriorated, but I didn't see the city of Chicago mentioned in the artcle. Yeah, we'll skip Chicago I'm sure. That's quality analysis my friends. P.S. Isn't Brazil supposed to host in 2014? We've got a good shot at hosting that one too.
I can see a match or two given to Canada as a gesture, but they completely lack facilities for a viable bid. Mexico would be an unlikely winner up against the US. As far as South America goes - they would have a legitimate beef - as they have waited patiently many years for another shot. Maybe a joint bid would be successful. I think FIFA is going to try to get away from too many joint bids, though, because they don't like to have to give two automatic berths away. They are already cutting out the winners auto-berth, but it causes so much angst among the different confederations when extra births are handed out. That makes Aussie-NZ a no go. How could you justify 2 berths to Oceania? Australia would have to go it alone. I am not sure how their stadia would stack up, not knowing the condition of their Aussie Rules/Rugby fields. I don't know if they have the wherewithal to justify building new ones. Hopkin's dismissal of Africa is not acceptable to many folks - there have been some pretty ugly discussions of this on other threads. They refuse to accept that some of the social problems he mentioned marginalize South Africa as a candidate. RSA does have lots of large stadia, although many of them are not in tip-top shape and they have had lots of crowd problems at the stadiums fairly recently. What would really stink is if Libya or someone in North Africa just builds a bunch of venues on the backs of the poor and FIFA takes them seriously. I think it will boil down to South America or USA in the end. I can see FIFA giving a couple matches to Canada or Mexico as a gesture, but only if they qualify "independantly".
First off, FIFA will award the WC to an African country for 2010. They may end up pulling the cup like in 1986, but the initial decision will go to Africa. Second, I don't think the original 9 should be the only choices for hosting WC games. There have been many new state of the art facilities built around the country and all should in the pool for WC games. I personally hope if the Chargers get a facility in SD, it would put us at the top of the list for future WC games. We have the weather and fans to support soccer 100%.
They have the weather for nine months of the year, but I'm not sure how good it is for June and July - particularly when Europe wants afternoon games so they don't have to watch in the middle of the night!
june is quite a cool month around here, and july ain't all that much hotter. it's august and early september that you have to worry about.
screw the NY media elite and Frank Deford If the USSF had balls, they wouldn't have a match at Giants Stadium due to the way NJSEA is treating the Metrostars. MLS/SUM/USSF is essentially one entity when it comes to TV rights, and they should stick up for each other regarding venues (if a 2010 Cup got moved here from Africa). Yes, it would be easier to sell tickets to random Eastern European country vs. random African country at Giants Stadium, but you don't need it to make any World Cup a success. And there are plenty of renovated and new stadia that can accomodate wide pitches on a field/pitch that doesn't look like crap. And I'd laugh if the USSF didn't have Cup games in its Chicago backyard, especially with a renovated Soldier Field.
LiverPool SC is right The CSA has made some noises about bidding for the 2010 WC, with the understanding that it will be going to Africa. I believe this gesture is to build up our chances of hosting down the road. But the facility situation is laughable at the moment, with only one large stadium (Commonwealth Stadium in Edmonton - site of the 2001 World Track & Field championships) having natural grass. Co-hosting with the USA would be nice, but why would the USA even consider it?? BTW, there are creditable rumours of a soccer friendly facility being built in Toronto. Canada will probably bid to host a U17 or Youth World Cup to build its reputation before going after the big show.
San Diego's weather is pretty much the same all year round. Seriously, that is not hyperbole. http://www.weather.com/weather/climatology/monthly/USCA0982 12 degrees farenheit worth of variation for the average high over the entire year. Perfect weather for any sporting event on average, not too hot, not too cold.
2010 WC back in USA DREAMING. The money may look good - particularly to the American point of view. I suspect that Brasil would be a first choice if for some reason, a suitable African host(s) can't be found. My opinion is that WC10 will be in Africa, and that joint hosting would be advisable with considerable help from FIFA. Unfortunately, I don't think that the powers to be are of the same mind.
Don't forget the midwest here. I would prefer Chicago over Detroit because of an outdoor field (and it is closer to me). On the topic of the midwest, how big can Crew Stadium be expanded to? If they can put 24K in it now, would it be possible to sit 35K with lots of expansion?
It would have to expand to seat more than 40K, which is the minimum for a World Cup finals match. Sachin
Interesting read by Allen again. Couple of point to consider: Germany 06 will be held in 12 cities. Allen suggests 10, but all incentives point to more, not fewer, venues. You can see the cities, venues, etc. here: http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/en/06/loc/c/index.html It's also likely that FIFA will insist - although perhaps later back off - that all stadiums seat at least 40,000 and are all-seaters. That was the case in Korea/Japan and is expected to be the case in Germany. These requirements shouldn't be an issue for the US, but may be an issue for various other countries that would like to host in 2010 and beyond. Of course, FIFA can always just choose to not worry about it. It's also instructive to look through the stadium descriptions on the German site. These are all going to have all sorts of nice bells and whistles. Check out how much money is being spent for improvements (and this is Germany, so the starting point wasn't as low as many countries would be). There just aren't a lot of countries in the world that will be able or willing to spend those sorts of resources. And yes, Reliant was designed to accommodate soccer.
Thanks for the link. Unless the stadia have a consistent tenant, it makes little sense for a country or FIFA to invest in up to 12 stadia for a months worth of football. Germany is spending over a billion dollars on stadium improvements, but much of that spending may have taken place regardless.
I don't believe Foxboro has any covered seats Go here and use the 3d seat viewer http://www.gillettestadium.com/stadium_information/# Andy
I just am fearful of games played anywhere along the Gulf Coast from Florida to Texas. Now Houston has a retractable roof so that should be fine, but there was a lot of complaining about the weather in Florida last time and I know I sweated like a pig in Dallas.
You're right of course. And he somehow completely forgot CHICAGO in a long article examing hypothetical World Cup USA 2010 cities. Chicago, the what, third largest media market in the US, home of US Soccer, an MLS team, a perfectly good stadium, proven soccer venue AND the site of the '94 World Cup's OPENING GAME. If Giant's stadium is a lock, then so is Soldier. My point is, this article consists of "off the top of the head" typing, not genuine analysis. Interesting read? Our standards for soccer coverage are pretty low. It's funny how we belittle the opinions on BigSoccer, for their very presence on BigSoccer, then put internet columnists and self-declared journalists on a pedestal. A lot of them would do well to read BigSocer more often and more carefully. Sorry Allen, but if you're going to become the media, you will be held to a public standard. Best of luck.